Addressing threats to health care's core values, especially those stemming from concentration and abuse of power. Advocating for accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in leadership and governance of health care.

Sunday, February 03, 2013

The Story of CPRIT, Part 2: A Problematic Grant

The grant that upset Dr. Gilman so much that he chose to resign was an award of $22 million dollars for one year.

The award had been presented to the Oversight Committeee and approved without going through any scientific review. It was a combination award to Rice and to an organization, IACS (Institute for Applied Cancer Science), associated with Lynda Chin, a scientist and wife of the president of M.D. Anderson, Ronald DePinho. Remarkably, the IACS portion of the award had not been reviewed by the provost of either Rice or M.D. Anderson, and after reaching CPRIT, it was rushed through the CPRIT approval process in a very short timeframe in March 2012, and not at all in the regular way of electronic submission and a review process mentioned in yesterday’s post.

Apparently, this had been in the works for some time. CPRIT memos show
discussion of this between Jerry Cobbs, the Chief Commercialization
Officer, and the IACS people as early as January. And Charles Sherr, a
member of the Scientific Review Council, recounted in a May email that he had run into DePinho in October at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Over cocktails, I ran into Ron who immediately told me that he was in
direct touch with ‘the higher-ups’ who run CPRIT and that the program
and Al would soon be under pressure to change the current approach. . . .
[I suggested] he might speak directly to Al. Well appreciating Ron’s
malignant ambition . . . , I was not blind-sided later by the proposal
to mount ‘a Lynda Chin Institute’ under the auspices of Ron and MDACC.
It is my firm belief that Ron has played a direct and important role in
helping to orchestrate what is, in effect, a coup d’etat.

Dr. Gilman, on the other hand, was very muchblindsided.

A week before the Oversight Committee meeting, I learned essentially by accident that CPRIT was to make an $18M aware to Lynda Chin to fund the Institute for Applied Cancer Science. The proposal on which this was based was less than 7 pages, was submitted via the back door on March 11, and was presented to the Oversight Committee for funding less than two weeks later.

When he discovered it, he was extremely angry. Bill Gimson, the
executive director of CPRIT, wrote to a member of the Oversight
Committee:

Al is very, very upset that the Lynda Chin operation at MD Anderson is coming in as an incubator – he feels that she did that to avoid the research peer review and that it is not an incubator because it is research.

Earlier, Dr. Gilman had bought off on approving a $4 million grant for an incubator sponsored by Rice University, one pushed heavily by Charles Tate, a venture capitalist and commercialization advocate appointed to CPRIT’s Oversight Committee by Dewhurst (Tate had made campaign contributions amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to Dewhurst). The incubator was to be allowed to chose promising projects without the usual scientific oversight. (My personal thought is that this was possibly a tactical error on Gilman's part that he agreed to it, as this project was designed to be the "foot in the door" for enabling many future projects to evade the regular process of scientific review, judging by the fact that it was later described by a proponent as a commitment "to run a separate line aimed at commercialization that did not rest on scientific review.") Now, the IACS’s short proposal was joined with the Rice incubator project and the grant amount vastly increased under the rubric of describing the whole thing as appropriate for an “incubator.” As Gilman angrily wrote:

An award of $18 million for a research proposal without a research review – based on the administrative act of bolting it to an incubator proposal and the claim that this is an appropriate award for an incubator – is amazingly transparent. Deny it all you want, everyone who has looked at the proposal realizes that it is a joke. Everyone will also wonder why they cannot submit a seven page general description of a modus operandi, free of detail, and receive a multi-million dollar award if they simply say, ‘I hope to commercialize something, sometime.’

In addition, plans going forward by those who wanted to remold CPRIT were for commercialization projects to take around half of remaining monies after administration costs and a statutorily-designated 10% for cancer prevention research and activities. This was very different from what had occurred up to that point. The bulk of over the $700 million already awarded had gone to research. Matt Winkler, a member of CPRIT’s Scientific and Prevention Advisory Council, stated blandly:

We should really get out of the business of copying what the NIH does.

Joined with the idea that many “translational” projects should NOT be
subject to scientific review, this was too much for Dr. Gilman – and
ultimately for many others – to swallow.

Not science but business was the new order of the day at CPRIT, as its leaders made clear when the news of Dr. Gilman’s resignation was leaked to the press. Bill Gimson, the CPRIT Executive Director, defended CPRIT's increased emphasis on commercialization, stating in June:

We're going to reinvent ourselves on a regular basis.

As to the celerity with which the grant was approved, he said:

We did indeed move quickly with the review of the collaboration between Rice and MD Anderson, just as we have fast tracked other very exciting and potentially lifesaving commercial ventures and research recruitment awards – which can be approved in as little as a couple of weeks.

ACS
is a game-changer - not a traditional research undertaking - that
provides a robust pipeline for successful drug development. ... Because
it is not a research project, no in-depth science was included. ... With
its industry-seasoned professional staff numbering 56, the IACS
conducts rigorous, goal-oriented, milestone-driven activities …Some may
choose to call our proposal ‘research.’ We call it business, and we are
confident Texans will be the beneficiaries. ... The current output of the IACS pipeline will prove its commercial impact in the near future.

6 comments:

An FYI from the recent pharmalot article about the sunshine rules that were finally released:"There is at least one exception to the the reporting requirements – manufacturers and GPO’s are not required to report ownership or investment intereste held by teaching hospitals."

Our Tenth Anniversary

The tenth anniversary of Health Care Renewal was December 10, 2014. During our anniversary year, please help Health Care Renewal continue to challenge concentration and abuse of power in health care. Donate to FIRM, the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine, a US 501(c)3 non-profit. All contributions are US tax deductible as provided by US law. Our address is 16 Cutler St, Suite 104, Warren, RI, 02885. Email info at firmfound dot org for questions or comments.

FIRM welcomes support from individuals and non-profit organizations. If you are interested in donating to FIRM, please email info at firmfound dot org, snail mail us at 16 Cutler St, Suite 104, Warren, RI, 02885, USA, or see our web-site

Note that FIRM is a 501(c)3 that researches problems with leadership and governance in health care that threaten core values, and disseminates our findings to physicians, health care researchers and policy-makers, and the public at large. FIRM advocates representative, transparent, accountable and ethical health care governance, and hopes to empower health care professionals and patients to promote better health care leadership.

Health Wonk Review

Policies: Blog Roll and Comments

Our blogroll is meant to include blogs that provide interesting content relevant to what we write. It is not an endorsement in any way of any specific blog.

We accept comments, especially from registered Blogger users. If you do not wish to register with Blogger, we will accept anonymous comments, although prefer that they contain identification of the commenter.

We encourage thoughtful comments relevant to the issues brought up by the posts on Health Care Renewal.

All comments are moderated. We will reject spam, profanity, advertising of products or services not directly related to the content of this blog.

We will reject any unsubstantiated accusations or allegations.

Nonetheless, all comments represent only the opinions of those making them. The appearance of comments does not imply endorsement by the Health Care Renewal bloggers.

Please email general comments about the blog, other concerns, or questions to info AT firmfound DOT org